Mr.B.Shankara Raman v. The Commissioner Of

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 26.04.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN B.Shankara Raman ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005

2. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruvarur, Thiruvallur District

3. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pallipattu, Thiruvallur District

...Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant special grade pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 06.11.2001, since the petitioner completed 20 years in the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and to grant grade pay of Rs.4,700/- as per G.O.Ms.No.234 finance (pc) dated 01.06.2009 within a short date.

For Petitioner : M/s G.Sridevi For Respondents : Mr.M.Shahjagan Special Government Pleader 1/4

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to grant special grade pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 06.11.2001, since the petitioner completed 20 years in the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and to grant grade pay of Rs.4,700/- as per G.O.Ms.No.234 finance (pc) dated 01.06.2009 within a short date.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that, as per the G.O.Ms.No.234 Finance (PC) Department dated 01.06.2009, for the post of Deputy Agricultural officer, pay was fixed at Rs.9,300/- - Rs.34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,700/-, whereas the petitioner was given the grade pay of Rs.4,200/- only and the petitioner never faced any disciplinary proceedings or any charge memo. Further, in view of non granting of special grade in the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer and the grade pay in the post Deputy Agricultural Officer, the petitioner is receiving lesser salary. Hence the petitioner had approached the respondents by way of oral and written submissions, the same have not been considered, hence this Petition.

3. When the petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for 2/4

the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired on 31.04.2018 on superannuation and all the requisite and retirement benefits were granted to the petitioner. As such, nothing survives for further adjudication and the present Writ Petition may be dismissed as infructuous.

4. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the benefits prayed in this Writ petition were granted to the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous and nothing survives for adjudication.

6. In the result, the present Writ Petition is hereby dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

26.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking /Non-Speaking Order ssd V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J., 3/4

ssd

1. The Commissioner of Agriculture, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005

2. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Thiruvarur, Thiruvallur District

3. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Pallipattu, Thiruvallur District 26.04.2023 4/4